historical roles vs female submission

[rosco rathbone]

Tee hee. I like it. It makes me nostalgic for college. You'll miss this shit one day, mark my words!

I never could get into the really theoretical stuff in school. Foucault hurt my brain.

So they have young ladies reading Foucault in finishing school these days, do they. This will lead to nothing but disputation and household disharmony.

 

[Stella_Omega]

What decade in Canada was this?

This decade.

I'm no more thrilled by the notion of abdicating choice in the matter than you are. Which could be why I'm struggling with the causality here.

Does a tradition of domestic violence and the sequestering of females necessarily follow from a tradition in which both males and females defer the selection process to their elders?

Yes, without a doubt, unless the parties are given a voice in the arrangement.

There are, regrettably, plenty of US cases of domestic violence involving females of European descent, who made the marriage decision all by themselves.

Yes, but they are frowned on, more or less, by US society. In cultures with arranged marriages, the entire community tends to work together to control the women-- including other women.

FOR A country that registers two million cases of female infanticide and nearly 5000 dowry deaths ever year, the less spoken on the status of its women, the better.

Here is a legitimate (because Western) report (pdf download here)

 

[Netzach]

Wow, the hostility here towards other cultures, and misunderstanding of those cultures is just ridiculous. Talk about ignorance

You all do realize that 50 years ago women had to be covered head to toe in christian churches. So that's what, your grandmas Never wondered about how the mom of Jesus is always dressed, and still is depicted. Or that it was jesuss dads full right to stone his cheating wife to death. Divorce, recent phenomenon, even the king of england had to jump through hopes to get his. What is marriage in the first place, method of controlling your lineage, and hence your woman, don't want someone elses kid getting your stuff. Yada yada yada, deaf ears right.

Yeah, I can't understand what I saw in front of my face every single day, or how "happy" those people are. I just lack *comprehension.*

And I'm not talking about (rural) India, I'm not talking about a situation where she was liable to be hunted down by his siblings if they felt like it, I'm talking about simply "you and you, you're getting married" and people who never felt like there was any other option. Because life isn't about being happy, it's about pretending to be happy while you're bewildered and trapped.

Of course India is a huge place and a changing place and it's stupid to limit one's understanding of it to bride burning. A girl's as likely as to be forced to do her engineering homework as she is to be forced to marry.

Back to Grandma and Grandpa -if you polled them they would have self reported as "happy." Both of them. These are people where you look at them objectively and you think to yourself "I don't understand why these people are married." Spend 15 minutes around them and you realize "happy" is not the word for it. Spend a day around them and you will see evidence of actual hatred for each other at times.

You want to read data that illustrates how much better off people are when their parents pick their spouse and look through rose colored glasses - fine.

BTW I think that arranged marriage is absolutely brutal on men as well in another way. It's about people as parental property, and it's fucked on that level.

But if you're happy with your mom picking out a three year old you've never met for you to have to live with in 15 years, be my guest.

 

[thesan]

What I'd like to know is, do any of you do these things, behave these ways, and why?
For the Doms, do you have subs that behave like this, are these requirements you have in place, or do you find it weird and old-fashioned?

As a wider question, what does this say about female subs and the progress of feminism?

(this are serious attempt at thread, I are serious thread starter :grin: )

Okay so I am going to go back to the original question because, well lets just say that it is a good thing that we are engaging in this conversation via internet.

Molly- I do those things that my SO wants. It has always been my need to please the one I am with. Not everything on that list is pleasing to the one I am with. Nor would some of them be appreciated. Which is why I think generic lists like that do not address the needs of the people in a relationship. A good solid relationship meets the needs of the people in it.

Not a Dom so can't answer that one.

I don't think duties, responsibilities, etc., specific to a particular relationship says anything about the progress of feminism per se. I do think that we are not bound by generic gender roles, however, says quite a bit about how feminism has effected our culture and its biases.

 

[Netzach]

no, you have totally missed what i have been trying to express. i am talking about life and the purpose of such beyond individual personal relationships, and even beyond a particular society in which one lives. i am talking about the big picture, the really big picture. humanity as a whole. it's frustrating to me that leopards, penguins, sperm whales, wolves, falcons, squirrels and sockeye salmon all know (sans human interference that is) what to do and how, they know their life's purpose and their place in the grand scheme of things, and they set about that course. while we humans are basically walking around like, "uh...huh..wha?" and running into brick walls. our "higher" brain function hinders us this way, makes us either forget or disregard everything we are and know at the primal level. this is what i'm talking about when i say "archaic." not some 1950s american ideal that never existed anyway, and not any particular society's decree that women are x, men are z. i do believe that at some point in our early evolution...from the time we started cooking our meat to the time we started establishing permanent settlements or "camps"...we were actually clued in. we were in accordance with what i call the natural order. that is what i wish we could re-learn.

feminism preaches independence and individual choice, and scoffs at there being any kind of natural order. there is a selfishness and arrogance in that message that i find not just unappealing, but dangerous. but whatever, i'm weird.

The reason penguins, sockeye, and squirrels all do as well as they do is because there's actually a mind-melting level of variance among the individuals. Choices are being made constantly by all individuals, females and males. Female mate choice is actually pretty sacrosanct in a lot of species, non-existent in others.

Cheetahs all do the same thing the same way practically and have a lot of the same genes. Largely our fault, but look at what HAS thrived and what hasn't - species with wide behavioral variances, adaptability, and genetic diversity.

I'd say that our recognition of the infinite ways in which we can and do branch off - and our adaptations, which offend you - ARE how we fit into the natural order. We're *supposed* to adapt in all these outrageous ways like lions are supposed to eat antelope.

 

[Keroin]

In cultures with arranged marriages, the entire community tends to work together to control the women-- including other women.

This.

I'd say that our recognition of the infinite ways in which we can and do branch off - and our adaptations, which offend you - ARE how we fit into the natural order. We're *supposed* to adapt in all these outrageous ways like lions are supposed to eat antelope.

And this.

Yes.

 

[thesan]

I am just going to ignore the lets get back to our fundamental biological drives argument. Its just eat sleep fuck die. And quite frankly, I don't even think it is worth our time to get into a dialogue about why that is not even remotely worthy of discussing.

 

[Netzach]

Why is it so important that men have options? I mean wasn't it better when a guy went into his family business, no question about it?

 

[JMohegan]

Western Canada. The biggest immigration happened in the 1980's. But the problems of domestic abuse have not changed. My old neighbourhood is probably about 80% Indian now, maybe higher.

I agree that there is abuse within all cultures but the problem in the Indian community is that it is frequently condoned and covered up. There's a level of complicity that doesn't exist in cultures of choice. IMO.

I don't think arranged marriages necessarily equal abuse but I think that a culture in which females have little or no choices or power makes it much easier for abuse to occur and continue - and for the type of abuse to be much more harmful/fatal.

I'd say that a culture in which females have little or no choices or power absolutely guarantees that abuse will not only occur, but be tolerated, condoned, and perpetuated.

All I'm saying is that a tradition in which a man's choice is restricted as much as a woman's is fundamentally different that a tradition in which men exercise choices denied to the opposite sex.

This decade.Yes, without a doubt, unless the parties are given a voice in the arrangement. Yes, but they are frowned on, more or less, by US society. In cultures with arranged marriages, the entire community tends to work together to control the women-- including other women.

FOR A country that registers two million cases of female infanticide and nearly 5000 dowry deaths ever year, the less spoken on the status of its women, the better.

Here is a legitimate (because Western) report (pdf download here)

Your first link specifically carves out urban advancements, and your second explicitly focuses on the rural. We've already addressed that distinction, no?

I wish we had an educated Indian female voice on this forum. Since we don't, I googled and found this. Advertising (!) and extended family issues aside, her description of the modern Indian wife doesn't sound too far off from the do-it-all, be beautiful and career-minded and SuperMom, pressures in the current U.S.

 

[ownedsubgal]

The reason penguins, sockeye, and squirrels all do as well as they do is because there's actually a mind-melting level of variance among the individuals. Choices are being made constantly by all individuals, females and males. Female mate choice is actually pretty sacrosanct in a lot of species, non-existent in others.

Cheetahs all do the same thing the same way practically and have a lot of the same genes. Largely our fault, but look at what HAS thrived and what hasn't - species with wide behavioral variances, adaptability, and genetic diversity.

I'd say that our recognition of the infinite ways in which we can and do branch off - and our adaptations, which offend you - ARE how we fit into the natural order. We're *supposed* to adapt in all these outrageous ways like lions are supposed to eat antelope.

i get the idea that some are maybe finding me offensive, which is definitely not my intent. this is actually a topic that causes me a great deal of fear and sadness.

i am not advocating a world of humanoid drones, without life or color or beauty. that is certainly not what i see when i observe animals in the wild. and you are correct, there are individual choices made constantly by penguins, wolves, squirrels, etc. but i notice how the significant choices work for the greater good of the species as a whole. mate selection, for instance. more diverse and stronger genes in the pool makes for a more successful species. but what about our choices, the choices people are willing to die for the freedom to make? are they about betterment of the species or betterment of an individual life?

i think that we are intended to be as diverse as we are. but i think that with that diversity we are still intended to seek a common goal or purpose. what i see when considering humanity as a whole are 6 1/2 (or whatever the number) billion different threads all matted and gnarled, with loose ends veering off into about 6 billion different directions. and i just can't see purpose in that, hope in that. what i would love to see would be those 6 1/2 billion threads of all textures, colors, materials...coming together to make one big amazing beautiful tapestry. i want to know that i'm part of that tapestry, because otherwise for me, this life has no point.

 

[ownedsubgal]

We didn't have Women's Studies back in the day; we were living the revolution in real time.

The core message I got regarding independence is that the capacity for independence is a critical element of life as a fully-functional, healthy adult - regardless of gender. Why? Because forced dependence is stifling for many and fundamentally perilous for all.

but why must it be one or the other...independence, or forced dependence? as someone who has never had the capacity for independence, nor seen the value in it as some universal human virtue, the message i have always received from feminism is "you are defective, you don't belong in society."

 

[Netzach]

but what about our choices, the choices people are willing to die for the freedom to make? are they about betterment of the species or betterment of an individual life?

Yes. Both. Either. Satisfying, I know.

Some people will use that ability to determine their own lives to cure cancer and some people will use that ability to murder small children and some will use it to smoke lots of pot and play video games and ignore everything else.

Look around, look at the geopolitical sphere - I think that the significance of China as an economic power is overstated, the significance of India as an economic superpower on the make is understated. I would say that the level of tolerance for individualistic humanist ideals is higher in the latter, the latitude to navigate the system of one's culture creatively is larger. While most people will not use this endowment for the highest ideals, some will. Some are fighting desperately for the most basic rights because they know, intrinsically, that without them there's stagnation and ultimate irrelevance. For the larger whole, though I think most people deal with the macro on an intuitive level, not a conscious one.

We're mostly paying bills here.

 

[Keroin]

I'd say that a culture in which females have little or no choices or power absolutely guarantees that abuse will not only occur, but be tolerated, condoned, and perpetuated.

All I'm saying is that a tradition in which a man's choice is restricted as much as a woman's is fundamentally different that a tradition in which men exercise choices denied to the opposite sex.

I guess the difficulty, for me, is that I don't know of any cultures where arranged marriages are the norm and where women are both legally and culturally equal to men. (Sorry for my ignorance). I think it's one thing to get pushed into a marriage, by your elders, where you don't like your husband and/or your husband doesn't like you, it's quite another matter when that same husband gets to call all the shots whether you like it or not. And he's going to have an entire community supporting him.

Sure, the husband may feel equally repressed but his physical well being is probably not in jeopardy.

I also think cultures of arranged marriages may be viable on their home turf but once you relocate them to places where others are clearly free to choose they tend to start failing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

but why must it be one or the other...independence, or forced dependence? as someone who has never had the capacity for independence, nor seen the value in it as some universal human virtue, the message i have always received from feminism is "you are defective, you don't belong in society."

Well, they can go fuck themselves, because this feminist says you do. And I was in the trenches in the sixties and seventies.

The thing is, humans don't have much tolerance for deviation-- as you yourself demonstrate. Feminism certainly includes an enormous emotional backlash against some women's willing dependence, because we had all been, for so long, forced into dependence.

I remember the gay men's backlash in the early 70's, when, from being seen as a good friend, I suddenly could not walk down the streets of West Hollywood without hearing someone hiss; "breeder." It was the first time gay men had ever been able to express their anger, you see.

 

[JMohegan]

but why must it be one or the other...independence, or forced dependence? as someone who has never had the capacity for independence, nor seen the value in it as some universal human virtue, the message i have always received from feminism is "you are defective, you don't belong in society."

The capacity for independence = the ability to hold down a job, rent an apartment, feed/clothe/house oneself. Exist, on one's own, as a fully functional adult. It does not mean permanently forgoing marriage or housewife status, refusing to ask for help, deciding that it is unethical or undesirable to defer to one's partner, or anything of the sort.

Forced dependence means either that society denies one the opportunity to earn a living and care for oneself, or that one is physically or mentally unable to do so, for whatever reason.

I have never once heard a feminist say that those in the latter group "don't belong in society." I have only heard explicit assertions that those in group 2 need special help.

For those who would choose a lifestyle of dependence, as Stella says, the feminist message has been mixed. My personal view is that such a choice is the right of the one making it. However, I also believe that people who are responsible for raising children have a moral obligation to foster the capacity for independence in each child, if possible, regardless of the future choices he or she may make.

The capacity for independence is important, because there are no guarantees that one will always have a responsible caretaker. People die, dump, go crazy, turn out to be abusers, or just turn into jerks. Forced dependence is a perilous state, precisely for this reason.

 

[JMohegan]

I guess the difficulty, for me, is that I don't know of any cultures where arranged marriages are the norm and where women are both legally and culturally equal to men. (Sorry for my ignorance).

No need to apologize. I don't either.

Do you know any cultures in which marriages are formed by the participants' choice and women are culturally equal to men?

In Canada, is that the case?

 

[Stella_Omega]

However, I also believe that people who are responsible for raising children have a moral obligation to foster the capacity for independence in each child, if possible, regardless of the future choices he or she may make.

That.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No need to apologize. I don't either.

Do you know any cultures in which marriages are formed by the participants' choice and women are culturally equal to men?

In Canada, is that the case?

That's what feminism is fighting for.

 

[Keroin]

No need to apologize. I don't either.

Do you know any cultures in which marriages are formed by the participants' choice and women are culturally equal to men?

In Canada, is that the case?

Well, it is in Nelson

 

[neci]

i have read through this thread, and really want to reply, but i have no idea what is actually going to come out of my head, so please bear with me. i grew up in a mother dominant home. my father was always caring and supportive of us, but when it boiled down to it, she wore the pants. she also lead her way as a woman through her chosen field, and because of her, women have opportunities that she carved the way for. i was raised by a woman who burned her bra, loved her family, made homemade meals from scratch, and is still dedicated and in love with her husband. there is a feminist deeply ingrained in me.

i am also submissive. when i first realized just how submissive i was, i wanted to hide it. i didn't understand it. it confused me. i have come to realize that the two can live in harmony. the feminist movement has provided me with opportunity to go out and live my dreams - what ever those dreams may be. i am not going to let anyone tell me who or what i should be. not an angry feminist nor an angry man will define my life for me.

i could never submit to someone who viewed me as less than. i may like to be used as a fuck toy, and i may like to worship some cock, but i am much more than tits, a mouth and a cunt. if a man isn't smart enough to see that, then it's his loss.

some of the smartest, strongest and most amazing women i have met, have given their lives in service to others. the world is a better place because of them. they are the women i look up to; the women i strive to be like.

 

[JMohegan]

That's what feminism is fighting for.

Yes, I know. I was just asking if she thinks we're there yet.

Well, it is in Nelson

Ha! Nelson! Fair enough.

 

[Keroin]

I was just asking if she thinks we're there yet.

Nope, we're not. But we're getting closer. And compared to many of the countries I've visited and/or lived in, Canada is a feminist's nirvana.

Ha! Nelson! Fair enough.

I live in La La Land but I like it here.

 

[thesan]

some of the smartest, strongest and most amazing women i have met, have given their lives in service to others. the world is a better place because of them. they are the women i look up to; the women i strive to be like.

Totally get what your saying.

Is it or has it ever really been true female submission when there was no choice?

 

[BiBunny]

I think we may be getting "submissiveness," the action, confused with "submissive," the personality trait, here. Choosing to be submissive to select person(s), however you want to define that, is different from having a submissive personality. Some people who have submissive personalities make a conscious choice to give their lives to select person(s), and some do not.

 

[JMohegan]

Totally get what your saying.

Is it or has it ever really been true female submission when there was no choice?

True submission, when one could have chosen otherwise, is a gift. And it takes massive internal fortitude. Strength in other words. I actually think submissives are stronger on many levels. Its a precious precious gift because of the strength that it takes to truly submit.

Dear god, you make it sound exhausting.

My personal preference has always been for someone who chooses me, as an individual, but just naturally thrives in the submissive role. Like people who are more comfortable as followers than leaders... but pick their leaders carefully, regardless.

Exhausting or not, whatever works for you is obviously fine.